sig campaign- what about "1merited post per week" instead of"25 post per week"

[bitmover]

I was thinking about this possibility. What if in future  sig campaign use "1 merited post per week" instead of"25 post per week" ?

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

I was taking a look at a thread today about ripple. The OP was asking 'why don't ripple moon"
There were tons of pages saying ripple is shit and it never mooned... Only misinformation, a bunch of useless posts. Ripple just came from 0.006 to .70 and everyone there saying"bag hodlers". And people are getting paid to say that.

I think that if it were MY company, I would prefer to see my ad (signature) in one merited post per week instead of 25 shitposts per week.

I would like to hear campaign Managers and more veterans members here. Probably it's not possible for now, but maybe something similar in future?

[1713922281]

1713922281

[1713922281]

1713922281

[1713922281]

1713922281

[Welsh]

It would be nice, although I think something like this would only be possible when there are more merit sources than there currently is. However, convincing the people behind the advertising that quality posts are better than quantity is going to be difficult. It's why there's so many signatures with low entry requirements right now. They don't really care about quality just getting their name out there. Unfortunately, more posts means more exposure. More exposure = More money for both customers, and the developers.

In a perfect world this would be great, but we don't live in a perfect world.

[Jet Cash]

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

Google reads them.

[Cashi]

As a Newbie it would be a great possibility too, because you don't have to wait if you are ranked up. Every Newbie will be encouraged to try it, even if you get only a single Merit.

Maybe we can give this suggestion a try. Especially all the shitposters, who ranked up before the Merit System will have huge problems ^^

[The Sceptical Chymist]

People wouldn't get paid because they're not earning merits, which would then drive them to buy merits.  People would earn a merit on their first post of the week and then not have to post again, which is a waste of money for the campaign. 

This isn't a horrible idea, but the only thing I see are the drawbacks.  I like what Yahoo62278 is doing better, which is to require a minimum amount of merits before even being accepted.  That weeds out a lot of shitposters.

[TheUltraElite]

A few ideas cropped up in my mind.

1. A rule like - those who dont receive at least 5 merits during their posting period of the entire campaign will not eligible for payment - for those which are paying in bulk once campaign end.

2. Some campaign are having a minimum number of merits in order to enter them. It would be great if these people are also evaluated in future about their post quality by looking at the number of merits gained while participating in that campaign.

[BTCeminjas]

***-snip-
1. A rule like - those who dont receive at least 5 merits during their posting period of the entire campaign will not eligible for payment - for those which are paying in bulk once campaign end.

I agree with this idea, it is probably in bounty/signature campaign since the manager there was not totally strict to their participants as long as they completed the weekly task. It's enough time for them having mostly 8 weeks to have 5 merits during the whole campaign posting.

Well, one thing that also in my mind the company don't mind on that as long as participants will keep spreading their company name under the signature of the participants.

I was thinking about this possibility. What if in future  sig campaign use "1 merited post per week" instead of"25 post per week" ?

Good idea mate, but idk if company dev of bounty campaign will agree on this. They want exposure to their company name.

[coinlocket$]

A few ideas cropped up in my mind.

1. A rule like - those who dont receive at least 5 merits during their posting period of the entire campaign will not eligible for payment - for those which are paying in bulk once campaign end.

2. Some campaign are having a minimum number of merits in order to enter them. It would be great if these people are also evaluated in future about their post quality by looking at the number of merits gained while participating in that campaign.

1- Very bad idea, the merit abusing is already from 20-40% weekly in this way you will increase even more(March)

2- Again you can't envaluate the merit gain while people are abusing without penalities, I'm not talking about 50+ merit (still unpunished) abuses but people even abuse/tradeback for 5-10 merits.

[nev1d]

Campaigns for this and expect that people write a large number of messages, thereby more showing their project in the signature. I think this idea is not being realized, but everything is possible in this world.

[Welsh]

1- Very bad idea, the merit abusing is already from 20-40% weekly in this way you will increase even more(March)

Although, this maybe true it actually has it's upsides as well. For instance, it will be easily identifiable if someone is abusing merit in this way, and can be tagged for it. Plus, this will eventually die down because, of members running out of merit. In fact I believe we are already seeing the effects of users running out of merit.  

2- Again you can't envaluate the merit gain while people are abusing without penalities, I'm not talking about 50+ merit (still unpunished) abuses but people even abuse/tradeback for 5-10 merits.

This is exactly why theymos implemented the merit received as half. They will eventually run out, and can no longer abuse the system. This might not be the best option right now, however in the future it could be something that actually works.

People would earn a merit on their first post of the week and then not have to post again, which is a waste of money for the campaign.  

Exactly. This is one of the points that I initially didn't think of. The only way around this would be to have both a post count requirement as it is now, and the proposed merit system.

I like what Yahoo62278 is doing better, which is to require a minimum amount of merits before even being accepted.  That weeds out a lot of shitposters.

The only problem with this system is it takes into account the past of the poster, and not the time that they are hired, and that's what really counts right?. That means they could of once been a great poster, but have since spammed to get money. It's better than just post count alone though. Again, you could combine initial merit requirement along with this ongoing requirement.

[HabBear]

I was thinking about this possibility. What if in future  sig campaign use "1 merited post per week" instead of"25 post per week" ?

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

I think that if it were MY company, I would prefer to see my ad (signature) in one merited post per week instead of 25 shitposts per week.

Correct, nobody reads those shitposts in megathreads, people scroll right past them, which allows the viewer (scroller) to see the advertisement in the signature that separates each post.

If you remove the incentive for people to make posts the company get's their advertisement shown on fewer and fewer threads.

[mdayonliner]

Signature campaigns will flop.

The number of signature campaigner will dramatically drop means not many shitposters will be joining in the forum.

Already exist shitposters will only post on the bounty threads to report their twitter and facebook bounty.

There will be only knowledge seekers in the forum.

May be the forum will lose large amount of traffic but it will be a better place.

I like what Yahoo62278 is doing better, which is to require a minimum amount of merits before even being accepted.

I personally like the idea too, I have seen Lauda is doing the same.

1. A rule like - those who dont receive at least 5 merits during their posting period of the entire campaign will not eligible for payment - for those which are paying in bulk once campaign end.

2. Some campaign are having a minimum number of merits in order to enter them. It would be great if these people are also evaluated in future about their post quality by looking at the number of merits gained while participating in that campaign.

I wonder if the sig campaign managers get worried about not having many participants for their campaigns.

[Welsh]

I wonder if the sig campaign managers get worried about not having many participants for their campaigns.

Haha, no. You could probably offer some people a pack of freddos (25p!) and they would join all jelly legged. As long as there's money to be earned for both parties signature campaigns shall remain. Even, with heavier restrictions I still think they would exist, and not be such a burden to the general forum user.

[Emilyp]

If this is to be put into effect, remember that it isn't all quality posts that gets merited nd also low quality posts gets merited as well. In such scenario where merit is the determining factor, don't you think it will even be more abused as people in a given campaign will do all that's within their power to get merit for each week.

[jackg]

I have an issue regarding this.

1. I earn merits in bursts (no idea why) but some weeks I get nothing, and others I can get 10-20 merits in them. I think most of the merits in the places I post probably end up going to members who actually need them rather than members who no longer need to rank up (legendaries).

I know DarkStar_ came up with an idea a while ago to try to get users to get 10 merits in the first month on the chip mixer campaign (which most of the users did achieve - but it was considered the rule was too harsh and the idea was dropped).

2. What stops a signature campaign manager meriting their campaigners first post to make it look like the problem is solved (if they have enough alts, it's possible).

[bitart]

I was thinking about this possibility. What if in future  sig campaign use "1 merited post per week" instead of"25 post per week" ?

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

I think that if it were MY company, I would prefer to see my ad (signature) in one merited post per week instead of 25 shitposts per week.

Correct, nobody reads those shitposts in megathreads, people scroll right past them, which allows the viewer (scroller) to see the advertisement in the signature that separates each post.

If you remove the incentive for people to make posts the company get's their advertisement shown on fewer and fewer threads.

The problem with megathreads, off-topic section, bounty section, etc that really nobody reads those topics but only writes them
So it's OK if someone runs thru a spam megathread he will see a lot of advertisement but as nobody reads them, there will be nobody to see the advertisements, only the bots, but bots are not the targeted audience...
If they spam in the Beginners board or in Bitcoin Discussion, your idea is correct.

[DarkStar_]

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

So kill the root of the problem, instead of adding some other rule. I don't count any megathread posts, guitarplinker didn't when Rollin.io's campaign was running, and I'm guessing some other managers do as well. If all managers do this, then things would be fine, without needing to heavily change up how campaigns work, and open up new avenues of abuse.

[bitart]

Nobody read those shitposters in megathreads

So kill the root of the problem, instead of adding some other rule. I don't count any megathread posts, guitarplinker didn't when Rollin.io's campaign was running, and I'm guessing some other managers do as well. If all managers do this, then things would be fine, without needing to heavily change up how campaigns work, and open up new avenues of abuse.

This would be the ideal solution, to somehow force bounty managers to 1) set some rules for quality 2) force enrolled members to post according to the rules.
But nobody can tell how we could force those bounty managers...
This is a free forum, it seems that everyone is allowed to manage his own campaign, if he wants to, or become a bounty manager and manage several bounty campagins... Signature campaigns are way better compared to bounty campaigns these days, so somehow we should regulate the bounties. I know that bounties (and ICOs) are good for the forum and generate traffic, which generates ad revenue, also it ranks the forum in the first place in a google search (the high volume of the current traffic), but somehow we need to find a balance between traffic and quality...

[pugman]

If all managers do this, then things would be fine, without needing to heavily change up how campaigns work, and open up new avenues of abuse.

Only thing : Bounty managers don't give a rat's ass about it. And half or probably even more of the bounty managers are new to the forum and don't even care to check out the post quality.

I like what Yahoo62278 is doing better, which is to require a minimum amount of merits before even being accepted.  That weeds out a lot of shitposters.

Not necessarily. Yahoo's campaign participants were caught sending merits to one another just so that they could enter the campaign. Hilariousandco found a few of them but that's not the end.

[cryptothief]

I like the merited post idea, and it would definitely encourage participants to up their game, just not sure it would have the reach that bounty managers need. Maybe a combination, so a minimum post count, plus a bonus of some sort depending on merited posts. I took part in a campaign recently where they gave reduced stakes for posts they deemed as below a certain quality level. While this is subjective, I think it had the desired effect of raising the quality of posts. I don't really consider the rank of a poster when (on the rare occasion) I click on a signature, so it raises the 'argument' that the quality of the post doesn't really matter as much as we might think. Minimum number of words and a post quality check by the bounty manager would seem to be the minimum requirements to maximise the advertising potential. Adding in a 'merit bonus' could be an additional measuring tool, although it could open the door for another avenue of abuse. Maybe a merit bonus with the post reviewed by the bounty manager before issuing it. Not an easy job though.